500 words a day on whatever I want

Christine Blasey Ford

Christine Blasey Ford (c. 1967- ) is a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University in California. She says that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her back in high school. President Trump wants to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, making him one of the nine highest judges in the land.

She could become the Anita Hill of the 2010s – only this time we have the Internet and the #MeToo movement. In 1991 Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. They spoke before the Senate on live television. Thomas needed to be confirmed by the Senate to get on the Supreme Court. He barely made it.

He says, she says:

He says: Kavanaugh, known to lie under oath, says her claim is “completely false”.

She says that in 1982 they were at a party when she was 15 and he was 17. He and a friend of his (Mark Judge) were drunk. They “corralled” her into a bedroom. As his friend egged him on, Kavanaugh forced himself on her, feeling her up, grinding his body on her, trying to take off her clothes. When she tried to scream he covered her mouth. She was afraid he would kill her by accident. Just then his friend jumped on them, which allowed her to break free.

She is believable because:

She demands an FBI investigation.

She told the same story in 2012 to her husband and to a therapist who kept notes. That means the story was not cooked up as part of a conspiracy to bring down Kavanaugh.

She places Kavanaugh’s friend in the room, which she would not do if she were making it up – because he would simply deny it (as he has).

Blasey Ford is a Democrat who has marched for women’s rights and science. She gave a total of $80.50 to Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders.

She is now in hiding, having received death threats.

Blasey Ford is willing to speak before the Senate but wants an FBI investigation first, as was done in the case of Anita Hill. Without one it becomes he-said-she-said.

The president would have to ask the FBI to reopen its background check. President Bush did that in the case of Clarence Thomas.

Senate Republicans seem bent on pushing through Kavanaugh’s confirmation next week with or without Blasey Ford’s testimony. Kavanaugh is so far to the right that Republicans might not have enough votes to confirm him after the midterm elections in November.

The irony is that White Evangelical Protestants voted for Trump in huge numbers despite his boast that women let him “grab them by the pussy” – because he promised to put judges on the Supreme Court who would end abortion. Kavanaugh himself played up his Catholic values. But now he seems to be cut from the same Trumpian cloth, a sleazy elite White male who thinks he can do whatever he wants to women and get away with it.

“He was only 17”: Emmett Till was only 14 when he was accused of much less and was lynched.

– Abagond, 2018.

Update (September 24th): Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh are set to speak before the Senate on Thursday, the 27th at 10:00 am Eastern time (14:00 GMT).

Meanwhile, a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has come forward, as reported by the New Yorker. Ramirez says that at a dorm party at Yale in the 1980s, she found Kavanaugh’s penis in front of her face. Someone said “Kiss it.” Kavanaugh then pulled up his pants and laughed.

Trump and Kavanaugh are dismissing both accusations, Ramirez and Blasey Ford, as a politically-motivated smear – a “grotesque and obvious character assassination” as Kavanaugh put it. Yet for some reason they are not asking for an FBI investigation.

Share this post:

Like this:

80 Responses

So many ra*pe apologists and so many men being dismissive of sexual assault and harassment of women in this society. The misogyny and patriarchy is rampant. The POTUS started out saying he wanted to grab women by their lady parts, so it’s no surprise he wants to have Kavanaugh the degenerate on the SCOTUS. I hope Blasey Ford’s testimony will hinder Kavanaugh’s chances of being on the SCOTUS.

Does not matter if he was 17 he was a 17 year old sex predator. Men are always protected in instances of sexual impropriety and women are always slu*t shamed and blamed when they are victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Under the laws of the country where I am now, the statute of limitations on rape claims provides a period of ten or fifteen years, which is absolutely logical and understandable. The participants has changed both mentally and physically, therefore I see these series of post factum historical claims as a nonsense at best.

It is also not a rare thing here that a woman blackmails her male partner with rape claims after a voluntary act, thus forcing him to act at her whims, therefore I would disregard such claims, at least after their ‘expiry date’, as useless or even insane.

That ‘metoo’ hashtag is to be read as a ‘mantra’ of envy rather than as a manifestation of solidarity.

As for her being believable, it is indeed a ‘she says’ issue so far. Besides,

demanding an FBI investigation could be a mark of an FBI setup as well (an investigation upon a previous agreement between a plaintiff and the investigators, or, to put it in other words, a way to control Kavanaugh because he had not made a decision designed or desired by the FBI);
telling same stories does not have to be a brandmark of truth (in fact, it is quite the otherwise, in most cases, because a liar sticks to events invented, while a witness or a victim is likely to be incoherent);
she would not do it if she were not a psychologist who is able to forsee the attitudes of other people. However, as a psychologist, she might be able to predict the denial from a friend of Kavanagh’s as well as a public seeing it as a mark of her ‘true story’, which I strongly doubt because of all the reasons listed here.

“Also, an attempt to act is not an action itself.” This is pure comedy on your part. You are right, attempted murder, burglary, rape, etc. are not these deeds. The silly laws make even attempts at these things illegal. Will you start a campaign to prevent such legal overreach where you live? Let us know how you fare.

“Under the laws of the country where I am now, the statute of limitations on rape claims provides a period of ten or fifteen years, which is absolutely logical and understandable. The participants has changed both mentally and physically, therefore I see these series of post factum historical claims as a nonsense at best.” Genius, absolute comedic genius.

Why wait ten or fifteen years!? Why, the very next second after the attack or alleged attack, the participants changed mentally. Keep up the sophistries, they are funny.

So, you imply that there are other kinds of sht on this blog, some of them being less funny and some of them be funnier, right? And to which degree exactly do you see this blog as a sht sump? And who else do you dare to try to insult in a same poor manner of yours?

I definately trust your opinion on sht, because a person — I’ve been thinking about writing ‘a man who…’, but I’m not sure because of the same desparate wish to contact you have shown as the other ladies here… you are most likely not an animal, though you can never be absolutely sure with the DNA technologies advancement these days — anyway, because a supposed person who reads nothing but sht, understands sht and knows sht about what I’ve written, a person who speaks such a perfect sht as you do could be nothing but a sht conesseur.

However, I trust your opinion on sht and sht matters only, not on my words.

Unlike you, I’m not a conesseur of any sh*t, so hold the mike and rant on.

” It’s important to people understanding how the word of a white person against a black person was law, and a lot of black people lost their lives because of it. It really speaks to history, it shows what black people went through in those days.”

Particularly as an example of childhood sexual assault, her story is believable to me. Such victims won’t usually just march themselves to a police station and report a sexual assault and often they’ll tell nobody about the incident.

Depending on age, they might not even be able to characterize what was done to them or understand its seriousness. They may have been threatened or pleaded with to keep secrets. They may feel shame or self-blame. The whole experience of discovering sex on their own terms is gone forever. That is something they have to mourn, like a death. They may simply want to forget the whole thing.

But ultimately the vault is not secure and any locked-away emotions have to be faced or they will bubble up involuntarily at the slightest trigger. Apparently Dr. Ford sought therapy in 2012 as the incident may have been affecting her marriage, even after all those years.

So I’m not surprised she’d have wanted to deal with this privately until learning that the person responsible for her trauma was THE candidate for a lifetime appointment to one of the Republic’s most influential positions. That’s a real game-changer that’ll provoke a person to speak up, not only because they have relevant information about his character but – on a personal level – they don’t want to hear about Justice Attempted Rapist for decades.

I would give any value to her story only outside of the political frame and with further investigation of the other stakeholders involved, that is, knowing who backs whom in this issue which has wrongly expanded from a private or social to a political one.

And, again, the time matters; I don’t know much about the American statutes of limitations on claims, but it’s an old story by the laws of the country where I am.

“Kavanaugh and Judge might not honestly remember it because they were drinking so heavily.”

Certainly possible, but IMHO not plausible. Even blackout drunk leaves glimpses. You remember being in a shopping cart, you just don’t remember why…. (random reference having nothing to do with me).

For Judge to claim he has no recollection of the entire party likely means he was not there or he’s lying. Since it was a party, one would expect other witnesses could place him at the party. Wealthy teens were known to use 35mm compact cameras in the 80’s so, there might even be photos that put these 3 at the party. That’s the kind of thing the FBI would be able to make quick work of uncovering. Short of that, it’s unlikely people would voluntarily subject themselves to the media circus by coming forward on their own.

“The issue is not whether Kavanaugh should be locked up – the statute of limitations has run out on that. The question is whether he is suited to be one of the nine highest judges in the land.

Well, the issue could be approached either from a mundane or from a spiritual POV.

From a mundane POV, the entire issue is clearly expired — with an only exception for the Maryland laws, perhaps. It can be also rationalised in such a way that a future judge trying to rape a future psychologist had not been a judge or a psychologist back then — besides, we don’t know much about the role of Kavanaugh’s firend. In other words, yes, he is, because he is not that person any more.

From a ‘spiritual’ POV, it’s about morals and ethics, which are, in turn, based mainly on a Christian or post-Christian ethics. Of course, we could try on a feminist approach — which I clearly despise as an abomination of falsehood and zoological struggle for power, an archaics matriarchal lust.

Besides, many sue issues where the women had been ‘wrongly’ looked, smiled, glanced, or approached at are based on a wrong assumption that thoughts, acts and intentions are the same thing. Thus, an action at a woman had been wrongly interpreted as ‘an action within her personal space’. However, women are not, to put it mildly, good in operating with a space, which explains why we have more statistics of traffic / parking incidents with sober (= non-intoxicated) women as compared to those with a part-taking of sober (= non-intoxicated) men. Therefore I disregard any feminist approach to the issue as an intentionally biased and contaminated with wrong views.

Speaking of views and not being a Christian or another Abrahamist (Hebrew or Muslim), I have to adhere to my root tradition, which says that a negative action counts as a such only with four factors completed. These are

an intention to act (presumably, there was some, but, as an irresponsible teenager, he could also be a puppet of his friend);
an object existing (this is dubious, but suppose she didn’t lie and somewhere deep inside her mind is still that suffering teenage girl);
an act completed (no);
a resulting emotion of satisfaction because of an act (which is not the case here, because an emotion would be hardly positive, if any).

Therefore, the act doesn’t count – which, of course, doesn’t mean that she should forgive, forget and move on with that, especially if there are still some traces left. But a judge doesn’t have to be a saint, he has just to be reasonable or. at least, impartially knowledgeable about the laws.

Therefore, my opinion is that yes, he is suited to be that. He would be not to only in a case of bribing, illegal scheaming or making deliberately unfair court decisions or showing his professional incapability.

I wonder if some people heard of sexual abuse within the Catholic church in which victims did not speak up until decades later when they were adults? It’s not that uncommon. Often there is a triggering event that causes them to pass the threshold of secrecy. Sometimes it’s just the fact that someone else was brave enough to speak about their abuse.

Hearing the person who wronged you attempt to get on the nation’s high court is a pretty damn good reason to speak up. Dr. Ford was quite discreet about it and was not looking for attention. But it really was a “speak now or forever hold your peace” moment and she chose to speak. For any republicans upset about this, what happened to “extreme vetting” now hypocrites?

@Nagpo
No, judges do not have to be a saints but the standard for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should rule out liars/perjurers, hypocrites, gambling addicts and attempted rapists. Aside from the moral corruption inherent in such vices, anyone with those flaws will be vulnerable to blackmail. If Kavanaugh is all or most of those things I seriously question the motives of anyone who would want him being a part of decisions that will impact Americans for decades.

Well, I think that is between her, Kavanagh and the rest of the USA citizens involved and I am none of the above. As an outside observer, I have already mentioned that this story should be regarded as a civil issue, not as a(n) (im)moral or (un)ethical one.

From my point of view, it would be enough for a judge not to be involved into any illigal activity during his or her duty and in a time prior to it as it is prescribed by acting law. A morally unscrupulous judge is ok as long as he or she is not corrupted, therefore I would draw a line not just between me and this part of the American story but between law and moral / ethics in their mundane sense as well.

That is funny considering his grand speech about people assuming intentions and other bs. He keeps assuming genders. The false idea that outspoken equals being a woman is bull. Questions people masculinity, but I wonder about his. I shall move on from this as don’t wan to pull this thread off topic.

“definately… conesseur.” Misspellings Nagpo? Couldn’t you at least come up with a few humorous malapropisms? Your blog clown title is in danger. How’s your campaign to reduce the statute of limitations for attempted rape to nanoseconds coming along?

“He also insinuated that Gro Jo might be less than human, a particularly insulting thing to say to a person who is black:”
Sorry, I’m not “particularly” insulted because I’m black. I’m amused and offended by the man’s stupidity.

Honestly, you are like a cat that knows that if it goes in water that it will not like it, yet it does it anyways. I find it hard to believe that you have no comprehension of what August means enough for you to need an explanation.

The question for me is if he attempted to rape Dr. Ford, then where is the one he actually raped. it is not a far stretch to believe that if he was willing to attempt he was willing to go all the way with it. Then again he could have viewed it as not rape or an attempt because it seems to be a thing for men like him.

“Does not matter if he was 17 he was a 17 year old sex predator.”–Exactly. There are plenty of sexual predators that started out young and were protected. A protection that allowed them to simply prefect their skills. By 17 he knew right from wrong.

Well, ‘like-minded’ doesn’t mean ‘thinking exactly the same thing about everything’. I thought we (me and the most visitors here) share the dislike for slavery and totalitarism, but maybe I’m wrong, because thinking within the box and bogotism doesn’t go well with freedom values.

This blog has interesting posts and sometimes I used to meet interesting people here, but that was a year or so ago, so maybe you’re right and I don’t have to hang out with the mobbers.

I’m writing anecdotally here, but I know several women, family, friends, friends of relatives who were sexually assaulted. By sexual assault, I mean full out rape to be having one’s buttocks grabbed. None of these people have ever gone to the police as they did not want to be subjected to the kind of treatment and scrutiny that this woman is undergoing for one, and, being turned into the villain in the piece. I’m sure there are women on here who have been assaulted sexually in some way shape or form. I myself had my buttock grabbed by some creep years ago. I walloped him with my purse. Catcalling is a form of assault as well, I don’t care what anyone says. Learn empathy instead of trying to pick apart this woman’s allegations. If this goof had other victims, they may not come forward after seeing the response meted out to this woman. The process can be just as traumatic as the act itself in many instances.

“Catcalling is a form of assault as well, I don’t care what anyone says.”

I agree.

When I was younger, I had a few experiences where the catcallers were in a car and I was walking, and they either kept driving around the block to catcall some more, or they drove slowly right behind me for a long time.

That’s terrifying. There’s a group of them in a car, you’re alone and on foot, and you have no idea if they’re going to try to escalate it and attempt to drag you into the car.

Where am I getting this from? Well, right from this blog, of course. A bunch of ladies headed by a certain Solitaire started a mobbing on me — which is a good example of female aggression directed at a man. Because I personally haven’t shown any aggression against them, this made me to think about the possible reasons of their agression, which brought me to a conclusion that it could be their fear caused by their traumatic experiences wich men.

I don’t remember myself having any traumatic experiences of such kind with men, and I hadn’t been among mobbers since my school age, so this is hardly a projection.

An answer; this mainly depends on whose hand and under which circumstances it is, but suppose it’s a stranger of an unknown sex, so my natural reaction would vary from my elbow or back of my neck hitting a stranger’s lower jaw or nose to my key or a similar object projecting a stranger’s eyball — now that is a projection.

“Well, right from this blog, of course. A bunch of ladies headed by a certain Solitaire started a mobbing on me ETc. “—Let’s not assume that the attitude towards you has anything to do with being raped or sexually assaulted. It does have to do with the fact that you made several false claims and when debates took place you attempted to play victim. Let us go back to your attack of ofbordelloandmen for pointing out wrongs of white men.Oddly enough the discussion was rape as it is here with Dr. Ford. You had no real rebuttal and when that was pointed out you tried to use religion, some bs excuse about people reading your intentions, and then tried to claim yourself as a victim.

“Because I personally haven’t shown any aggression against them, this made me to think about the possible reasons of their agression, which brought me to a conclusion that it could be their fear caused by their traumatic experiences wich men”–You actually have and I am going to use the example of you repeatedly calling me and solitaire beings and then going on further to call me a man. I can link those so that Abagond can have proof of this second troll, but this bs right here is called gas-lighting. Also it is another example of you begging for attention and then playing victim.

I think the aggression of some beings (or non-beings, if they wish to) here is a good example of false projections I have mentioneded above. Also, an expectation of a certain attitude when not clearly stated is another form of aggression, just a passive one.

Besides, their anger is a second stage of dealing with enavitable, right after denial, on which they are balancing between.

They are trying to assume not only magic powers of reading my intentions, but they are also show the worst kind of feminist ranting, using a full monty of all the feminist bs and other crop-a-cr@p they have; the accusations, the hostility, the dehumanasing people by a gender or a race, mixing unmixable, thinking unthinkable, speaking unreasonable.

I think if ofbordelloandmen has anything to say to me or demand my apologies she could do it without ‘help’ of nannies whose intellectual capacities are below any common sense.

*Well, because we are all beings. A demon, a preta, an animal, a human, an asur(a), a god or a goddess – we are all beings. They, you, me – we are all beings. Sentient ones– or otherwise.

I call them beings to emphasise that a human form is not an only possible one and that we are all bound by bonds of existance, we all have the same potential for a greatness or for a downfall. It could be a sentien being, a human being, a suprahuman being– the interpretations are up to a level of an addressee self-esteem and ability to understand.*

“ false projections “—False projection? I think not and this is common for you on threads dealing with females. Which is why there is no shock or surprise you would excuse rape or attempted rape regarding Dr. Ford.

In fact, this was following a warning you about the comment policy on speaking English. Just an FYI. This isn’t a projection or false assumption of your intentions, but your exact words.

“ intellectual capacities are below any common sense.”—Meh. I think it is clear that you don’t have common sense if you are expecting people to read your words and assume it means something else. You are if nothing else a liar. Why should ofbordelloandmen ask for an apology from you when you attacked said commenter? And if I am not mistaken ofbordelloandmen said plenty to you. Want those quotes so you can pull a Daniel and pretend it is all in someone head or some misinterpretation of your intentions. In fact, you could be Daniel because your tactics are mirror images.

“dehumanasing people by a gender or a race”—I laughed so hard at him saying this. Did you not just link and quote him calling Gro jo and open minded observer females? Particularly saying he refuses to debate with females, children, etc. in response to OMO.

‘Gaslighting’ is a term often used by feminists, and feminists are up to no good. Angry trollerinnes, at best. What the being under the nickname sharinaIr dug up here — as the other archeological findings — should be regarded at a wider scope and within an overall context, but their understanding has been blocked and narrowed by their [post-traumatic?] aggression.

This tread is getting nastier and nastier, with more and more off-topics and hostility and accusations from their parts. Next they are likely to hand to me the dubious honour of Kavanaugh substitute.

Should they politely ask for explanations or precision, I would explain, but it is below my dignity to jump into this dirty endless swamp of ‘you got it wrong’ and ‘I didn’t mean it’, or try to brighten their toxic attitude.

I meant what I meant, they just didn’t get it right. And I am not paid for teaching them or for nursing their traumas, nor am I responsible for their interpretations and emotional states. Banned or not, I don’t care; some people are just too toxic to deserve my further response or explanation.

Regarding Kavanaugh, you are sexist and that is why I initially chose to not respond to you. You see Dr. Ford coming forth as another feminist trying to bring down a good man. Dr. Ford could very much be a strong male advocate and not feminist at all, but the idea of her being a woman and one who is blowing the whistle on a sicko is just “wrong”. Thank goodness it appears a great number of states have no statutes of limitations, but more should follow suite as the trauma can be damaging. At the end of the day, it is very telling that you would make light of a traumatic situation such as rape to bypass being called out for poor behavior on this blog.

Except I’m actually not a feminist and the term is quite often used in the psychological realm by men and women alike to describe tactics used by certain individuals. In fact here is another article written by a man on the matter. It is a very real thing.

What I find surprising is instead of addressing actual quotes of you doing these acts. You usher people to “regarded at a wider scope and within an overall context, but their understanding has been blocked and narrowed by their [post-traumatic?] aggression.” Yet you do realize your idea of some type of aggression is an assumption in and of itself It’s not slightly aggressive to point out tactics and behaviors of an individual. You seem to believe you are entitled to something that others should not be allowed to do. Just as you regularly bring up me and solitaire and then for us to speak to you is then some idea of aggression or some other bs you come up with to excuse your obsession. Furthermore, you are trying to push some false traumatic experience, which I for one never had, to explain or excuse your attacking another commenter. When offered quotes you first tried to play it off as projection and when presented you tried to play it off as read the context. Those links will give context for those who have not followed and for those who have they already are well aware of context. But by all means explain the full context of calling me a male when my comment to you was telling you to check the comment policy because you were violating it by speaking in another language with no translation?

There is nothing to get right when you repeated have told members of this blog what gender they are. Have made snide remarks about solitaire and I to get something started and then cry foul once you get it in full, and worse yet all your arguments or debates have been met with ad hominems for anyone that challenges it. If you were sincere and realized it was a misunderstanding you would have clarified. You didn’t clarify because you meant what you meant and didn’t think it would have any blow back.

As two Russian sayings go, teaching a fool is like treating a dead and a fool can say so much than a ten thousand wise men would have nothing to object, though I’m not sure if the latter is a particularly Russian saying.

Well projection is often sad, which is why your response is down right cry worthy. You are the fool in your quotes and don’t know it.

You don’t get that I don’t even care for you explanations. The point was to simply point out that each quote presented you had time to explain and never did. Here you have time to explain it to abagond, but instead you chose to make it about some aggression that doesn’t exist. Placing blame on another rather than addressing what you actually have been saying. You are assuming about solitaire and I, but we are directly quoting you. SMH

And had he read that link he would know full well that the act he is putting on is gas-lighting at its finest. I would even go as far as to say he is narcissistic in nature. Typical of rapist and rape apologist.

If his explaination of being is true then why is it he only calls Solitaire and I beings, but no one else? Mind you he started this after and only after we called him for attacking another commenter. Not to mention his switch to non-being is clear that his purpose was to dehumanize and be insulting.

“A case of feminist lies, hostility, passive aggressivity, toxic foolishness and other nonsense —”—If that were true then it would not be examples displayed here that show otherwise. These are your exact words and you are so delusional and filled with anger each response you make ends up being more proof. Sad really.

Update: Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh are set to speak before the Senate on Thursday September 27th at 10:00 am Eastern time (14:00 GMT).

Meanwhile, a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has come forward, as reported by the New Yorker. Ramirez says that at a dorm party at Yale in the 1980s, she found Kavanaugh’s penis front of her face. Someone said “Kiss it.” Kavanaugh then pulled up his pants and laughed.

Trump and Kavanaugh are dismissing both accusations, Ramirez and Blasey Ford, as a politically-motivated smear – a “grotesque and obvious character assassination” as Kavanaugh put it. Yet for some reason they are not asking for an FBI investigation.

[…] I had the misfortune of watching the Senate hearing, which purported to examine allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Kavanaugh. For those of you who don’t know, a woman has accused Kavanaugh (Supreme Court Nominee) of attempting to sexually assault her while at a party in high school. Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations, while the accuser has said that she is 100% certain that Kavanaugh did commit this attempted sexual assault. She also participated in a lie detector test and has called for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh has not openly consented to an FBI investigation. Other women have also come forth and accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Learn more about the situation here. […]

She was cool, calm, collected. It took courage to come forward. I can’t phantom what this woman had to go through having her life turned inside out complete with death threats. Kavanaugh, crying white woman tears being emotional and having temper tantrums and playing the victim and Senator Lindsey Graham was disgusting as well. I believe Dr. Ford she proved to be credible.

It is obvious the senate committee is not interested in truth they just want to put this beast Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. Watching this horrible $h*t show just got on my nerves.

No one ever forgets being laughed at her expense and being violated at the same time. Seeing Kavanaugh and his belligerence and his inability to control his temper. Kavanaugh knows what he did, he and his buddy Mark Judge violated this young girl. Kavanaugh is the epitome of white male privilege and entitlement and white fragility. Now that he’s been exposed he’s angry because he thought he was above the everything and he’s being called out on his misdeeds.

Did you happen to catch the video of Senator Orin Hatch calling her an attractive witness? I loved the look on his face when the reporter asked him what he meant by “attractive”. He panicked, and still all he was able to follow up with was that she was “pleasing”. I can’t find the original video now, just audio clips, but seriously… who are these people we’ve put in charge of our government?!?